An analysis of campaign finance records by The New York Times this week found nearly 3,000 donations to Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, from more than a dozen people with apparently fictitious donor information. The contributions represent a tiny fraction of the record $450 million Mr. Obama has raised. But the questionable donations â€” some donors were listed simply with gibberish for their names â€” raise concerns about whether the Obama campaign is adequately vetting its unprecedented flood of donors.

Since the questionable donations raised such concerns, you’d think the paper would investigate. Yet, a search of the Times web-site (terms: “obama campaign fraudulent” or “obama donations fraudulent”) found that only its Caucus blog has covered the story since October 10.

As several readers of conservative blogs have found out recently (e.g. here, here and here), it’s easy to donate the Obama campaign using a fake name. Yet, when they try to give to McCain with a made-up moniker, they fail.

Apparently the Obama campaign has disabled the AVS [Address Verification Service] security system for online donations:

the AVS security checks most merchant processors use to screen out fraudulent transactions (and, incidentally, overseas customers) were intentionally disabled by the Obama campaign – and thus their web donation page enables fraudulent (and/or foreign) donations. The McCain campaign retains the AVS system used by other online retailers and thus rejects fake names and fake addresses.

Emphasis added. Even after the news broke about Doodad Pro and Good Will giving thousands of dollars to the Obama, his campaign still has not reenabled those security checks.

But you’d think they [the Obama campaign] would have taken measures to step up their donor security in the aftermath of the revelations. Having AVS turned on would have stopped or significantly deterred the fraudulent donations (or, at a very minimum, made them easily detectable). By turning this basic setting off, the Obama campaign invited this kind of fraud and has taken no steps to correct it.

We’d also see a lot of stories about his going back on his word saying that he would accept the public money and would reach out to Senator McCain to try to work out a deal. So I think this is a case of a clear, unambiguous double standard, and any reporter who doesn’t ask themselves, why is that, why would it be different if it’s a Republican? I think is doing themselves and our profession and our democracy a disservice.

If this was a blog, wouldn’t it have done a mea culpa on the completely fabricated, racist story made up by the McCain supporter about getting a B scratched into her face by an enraged black man over her bumper sticker? I’m just wondering…

And, again, it is pretty simple: Sarah Palin claims to be a hockey mom and a reformer and against spending, also, loves America and the real American parts of…oh, I slipped into Palinese. Anyway, she’s a hockey mom in high end clothing. Something a little more than $400 haircuts (remember those? you had fun with those…). She’s, how shall we say, about as authentic as the story about the B scratched into her face.

Will you promise to stick around and trash Sarah when she is sworn in on January 20 as the heartbeat away from making your world a better place? You have such an interesting way of showing your intellectual faculties.

That’s because silly jimmy is too much of a coward to state publicly that he supports Obama’s campaign finance fraud.

Man up, jimmy, and admit it. After all, since Barack Obama is black, he can’t commit a crime, right? Taking money from foreign donors isn’t a crime when Obama does it, just like falsely registering people to vote.